This piece by Gary Hubbell may not be the most idealistic appraisal of the campaign so far, but when it comes to stark reality, he may have pounded the nail right on the head. I can't believe it took a guy from the Aspen Times to write it, but when it comes to experts on white--well you can't beat Aspen. Read this, and let 'er rip. GS
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/2008198091324
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
You might not like it---but this story might just be white!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
In the words of your sponsor, Gary, Wow!
That dude has some major issues. It's hard to have a conversation about something like this if you cheer this piece that is laced with this much racism and misogyny. And your approval of it is stunning to me. I still get plenty angry about racism, but my first reaction to someone cheerleading this kind of writing is sadness.
This is the language and/or perspective divide I do not know how to traverse.
I guess in the end this is just 'the truth' and I can't handle the 'truth', can I Col. Jessup?
The first comment allows us to see how it's so hard for Americans to come together and reach out to each other. Throwing insults around at Gary, who only wants to find common ground and doesn't toe the line on any party, won't bring us together.
I still hope we'll come together as one, but screaming hysterically at each other is not likely to do it.
There have been a lot of nail pounders down through history.
This guy seems to fit the mold.
I'm sorry mcvie...would you please highlight the insult I threw or the hysterical screaming I engaged in?
I do agree, however, that it is difficult to find common ground with the racist thought behind that op-ed.
"That dude has some major issues."
I agree. It could have been a thoughtful piece about "that kind" of demographic, but there was an awful lot of vaguely xenophobic thought in there -- and I think it's a fine thing to discuss that there are people who think that way.
What I didn't care for is the feeling that the author agrees with those xenophobic sentiments.
"And your approval of it is stunning to me."
I think that's unfair. My guess is that Gary isn't using this as a sock puppet for his own opinions, but thought it was an article that would provoke some discussion. And it worked!
let's examine a few of the comments from this tirade:
"... the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him."
(Note that the defining characteristic of psychopaths is their complete lack of a conscience)
"He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner."
(And we know that the essence of the patriarchal sense of entitlement comes from pejorating women. All domestic violence has this underlying belief. The woman is considered inferior and everything about her, especially her opinions and judgements, are considered inferior to his)
" Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers."
(As segues, or non-sequitors go, this is classic. He's pissed off because his job and wages are being taken from him-----and then Al Sharpton is indirectly fingered. It's actually the white men who have approved the exportation of American jobs, the white employers primarily who have found a ready labor pool in the illegal immigrants who leave no paper trail and increase profits. But the blacks and immigrants are egregiously blamed instead. Scapegoating rules)
" . . .the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton.
He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman."
(The essence again of the male superiority complex that leads to all domestic violence----'women are lesser than men', women are incapable of making decisions', ----any woman who tries to boss over a man is the greatest threat to the male ego possible. Is it any wonder that black men got the vote 50 years before women did in the male-dominated USA)
" He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum."
(Domestic Violence 101. The threat established, now the man is empowered to carry it out. Any man who says something like this IS, without any question, a domestic terrorist)
That Gary would see some validity to this attitude, to the advocacy of torture, to the defense of war when the war is a bad option that could easily have been avoided, all show that Gary--a genuinely nice and kind guy-- has a latent violent streak.
Many guys have such a tendency, and never realize that they are carrying it around within them like an undetected parasitic virus.
But it reveals itself through the person's comments, if not their actions.
Jay,
I appreciate what you are saying in your post. I wasn't necessarily suggesting that Gary was using this article to voice his own opinion.
What I read from Gary was this:
"when it comes to stark reality, he may have pounded the nail right on the head."
That is a fairly strong endorsement of what I was being directed to read. And that anyone would endorse the opinion is what is stunning to me.
Puh-leeze.
'Latent violent streak?'
This is just the type of wussy talk the angry white man can't stand. If you can't honestly discuss an issue without resorting to Dr. Phil-style long-distance psychoanalysis, you are exactly the thing that disgusts the angry white man.
'This guy has issues.'
Dear reality_based,
you have major issues. You jump immediately from 'this piece that is laced with racism and misogyny' to 'your approval of it.'
That's simply emotionalism written on a blog. Gary has not endorsed this piece. He's using it as discussion fodder. Call in and discuss, don't sit out there in the ether and show your ignorance by namecalling.
I must have some kind of issue because I am really confused.
Gary says this racist tripe hits the nail on the head. You have to work hard to not call that an endorsement. I then question his support of it and he is the victim?
The tally is currently two claims who have said I am calling Gary name/throwing insults and one claim that I am hysterically shouting. Yet nobody can provide an example of said name calling or hysterics.
Defensive much?
If one feels defensive, perhaps that person should offer his hand and simply apologize. The one who goes first wins.
"Gary has not endorsed this piece."
Then why is the title of this post "You might not like it---but this story might just be white!" It's hard not to read that as endorsement.
Sounds like Hubbell must have just watched a rerun of the movie, "Falling Down", and decided to write this article.
Did anyone else ever see this movie? It came out several years ago and featured Michael Douglas as a "pissed off white guy" who runs amok in LA.
WOW! What a reaction to a story! I'm sorry that so many were trying to save my soul from racism and violence, and not instead focusing in on why I said that this story "hit the nail on the head." First of all, I offered this story as an observation by someone who characterized (in a very stereotypical way) a segment of the American population. My point in offering that he may have "hit the nail on the head" was not that this is the right way to live, but rather that there are people who hold these opinions. I think there are obviously a lot of people in this country who are feeling that something isn't quite right today; why would this offering not be at least another consideration. Maybe this article scared some people by touching a nerve because of their own primal feelings despite self-righteous denials to the contrary. There may well be another segment reacting to such a piece that wants to dismiss issues and profiles that need to be openly discussed. I'll leave that to each of you to decide. Finally, there are some who would simply love to embrace another chance to psychanalyze me. Save that, please, and instead look and see what was really meant. You are intelligent people and know better.
I did not endorse the article, but said that this guy may have "hit it on the head" by identifying a segment of the population. Nowhere did I say that I was happy or endorsed all of the qualities he pointed out in this piece. What he does do, however, is to starkly and openly offer an opinion. Don't you do that here all of the time. Is that a one-sided bargain? Some of you get so upset by politically incorrect speech, except when you want to use it. That doesn't seem quite fair, does it? As far as my endorsement by saying this story might just be "white," you must forgive what I guess was my feeble attempt at humor. Is there anyplace in this country whiter than Aspen, Colorado where they ski on snow that is white, and where there are probably more white people concentrated in a relatively small space than anywhere else in the country. That was all;nothing more. I can only tell you my heart, and what I meant to say. No apology here; just an explanation. I think the article is excellent because it raises many points over which the nation is arguing at the moment. It's not the truth, but a writer's observation. If we are afraid of it being injected into the conversation, and sidestep the debate by replacing it with what one thinks of my personal biases, maybe robust and fair debate is not what you really want. GS
Gary, you said:
"I think the article is excellent because it raises many points over which the nation is arguing at the moment."
And I reiterate that unless we focus on the beliefs (attitude, proclivities, mindset, philosophy) that drive this writer's blather we simply accept it as evidence of dissatisfaction of some American people.
It is important to question who we are as a culture.
It is absolutely necessary we examine our tenets if we are to be honest in the self-examination, do you agree?
We inherit some of our beliefs, osmotically ingest some from our maturational matrix, and fabricate others based on experience. All are inculcated ultimately to provide the screening filter through which we interpret data and respond to it.
In the final analysis, those beliefs that are functionally sound will be retained, and those that do not serve will atrophy----but it takes a while for them to dissipate when they have been part of our mentis operandi for a long time. Evolution, as Darwin showed, doesn't always quickly eliminate form no longer functional, such as the appendix, and in the mental sphere it is similar.
We can have those AHA! moments in which Samadhi occurs . . .but usually we have to go through some angst while the previous belief is let go, and the new one overwritten.
When I said you have a violent streak within----one you deny obviously, and those who know you will second that that is not who you are behaviorally----I am not trying to reduce you.
I am trying to refocus you to those beliefs that are hidden.
The mirror can't see itself.
Sometimes it takes others to reflect something to us, and when they do, it makes us uncomfortable.
But that's how we learn, how we grow.
I am sworn as most any healthcare worker or anyone in the social fabric working with others to report suspected child abuse. Even if the evidence is somewhat circumstantial, the mandate is clear.
I am also sworn, in the work I do with domestic abuse, to call attention to abuse especially that which is directed at children and women. But abuse that is directed at other races, other sexual preferences, other beliefs, is included.
Abuse is abuse-----and the one thing I will guarantee is that abusers will always deny that they are abusive. It is the nature of abuse to hide ---to camouflage itself in such way that it isn't obvious, to rationalize why it happens.
Abuse thrives in such secrecy.
That editorial piece is rife with abusive comments. The only person who could have written such a piece is him/herself an abuser.
Advocating torture of others is abusive.
Promoting a senseless and unnecessary war is abusive.
That's how it is.
I can't be silent about it. And I refuse to look the other way when it is in front of me.
jacque, is there no room to believe that people with whom we disagree are misinformed or poorly served by their sources of information?
Or must we believe that there is evil in their hearts or violence in their basic nature?
If we believe the former, surely it's in our interest to roll up our sleeves and engage in the hard work of convincing those people of our position.
If it's the latter, what is served by falling back on armchair psychoanalysis that serves to disengage the other person from discussion?
Look, like all right-thinking Americans, I hate the Dallas Cowboys. But I know that there's just no talking to a Cowboys fan, so I hold my tongue unless I can engage them in actual discussion (like about how the Cowboys are jerks).
Jay,
Not sure what it is you've said.
If there is evil in someone's intent, and it is clearly the engine for their actions, then we can't stand idly by.
Can we?
I mean, on the condition we have the ability to intervene to reduce harm. . .
But even if we can't actively intervene, we still have a moral mandate to cite the evil.
Silence is acquiescence.
Silence is enabling.
To me, it is clear that evil does manifest in people without their recognition of it.
Do you doubt this?
I don't.
I remember the first time I saw a child injuring a kitten by throwing it as hard as he could against the pavement. He was maybe 8. I was 11. I yelled at him, ran up to him and asked him what he was doing, he looked lost for a moment and then he left.
He was acting unconsciously.
He was taking out his anger at having been beaten with a belt by his father for stealing something, I found out. I didn't know his father as a cruel man and by all then acceptable social standards he wasn't, but he thought the way you discipline a wayward child is by beating them with a leather strap.
He abused the boy, and the boy abused the kitten.
Where's the evil?
In the boy?
In the father?
In the brain-damaged kitten?
Would it have been better for me to allow the kitten to have been killed? Maybe. I doubt it was ever normal afterwards. Would the boy have learned something by continuing the action? Would his anger have abated?
I don't know.
He's a successful businessman today. A nice guy. Kind, for the most part gentle. But I know he also spanked his son. And his son is now in jail.
You tell me.
I first heard about this article on "Rush" and thought Wow that's like a lot of people I know. Ya'll might not want to believe this but its true. If you turn off your NPR every once and awhile and go "slumming" to any dive bar and talk to the locals and you'll see this. In fact I've heard almost everything verbatim that this article said. Does this mean that the people are racist? I don't think so, I think they have a problem with people calling themselves "victims" and then using that as an excuse for their outcome in life. And this goes for every race! The angry white men I know would like to see everyone play by the rules and succeed, the same things they were raised to believe would lead to success.
And as for Jacque who somehow tied a spanking to a convict...that's like me saying pop tarts lead to death. My neighbor ate a pop tart and 10 years later died in a car accident. The two are unrelated.
Gary, I call B.S.
For starters, when I lived in PA and listened to your show you routinely chastised callers and emailers who dared extrapolate on what you were saying for the day. You would say something along the lines of "you don't live inside my head, so how can you know what I am thinking".
In this post you said:
"when it comes to stark reality, he may have pounded the nail right on the head."
Now, in reaction to this I, and some others, identify your association with the racist nature of this piece you criticize us for not knowing what was in your mind behind the statement. If your intention was to highlight someone "identifying a segment of the population" then you need to write that. Nothing in your original post suggests that is what you were doing.
Secondly, if that was indeed your intention, readers take note of what you choose to highlight. There is a certain "segment of the population" that thinks Barack Obama is a closet Muslim intent on converting all Americans to Islam. You don't highlight those people...but you do allow someone to post a rebuttal to emails that say such things. There is a certain "segment of the population" that believe 9-11 was an inside job. You don't link to a "starkly and openly offer[ed]" opinion on those topics (and yes I realize Jacques is among those, but you do your best to ignore it when it comes up.
My point is that you choose what you wish to give public airing. I would suggest there is something about this piece that resonates with you personally and you find legitimate. Hence the charge of racism and misogyny. Hiding that behind someone else's opinion (one that you think hits the nail on the head, by the way) is not forwarding the discussion at all. It is hiding. This is your website and you are responsible for the content here and how you link to it.
You want to have the race discussion? In the words of your favorite cowboy president, Bring. It. On. Just don't hide behind someone else's words and make the claim that readers want to avoid the issue.
Again, for emphasis and partial readers, the point I am making is that you did not make the case that you were simply giving public voice to a certain 'segment of the population'. The only comment you offered is that it 'hit the nail on the head.' If you don't want people to 'read your mind' (or your heart as the case might be) and to measure things by "what was really meant" then you need to be more explicit in your post.
Lastly, you deride what you like to call 'psychoanalysis' when it is directed at you. Re-read your post and you will find that you are happy to engage in it when directed at other people. Talk about double standards.
I don't see this as racist or mysogynystic. I think it is a fair assesment of a certain subculture. Saying that women are more emotional than rational is not prejudiced or mysogynistic. It does not speak of a need to control or change. And duh women are emotional.
The comment about Hillary is what it is. It is not the underlying seething mysogynist coming to light. What if these guys jsut see Hillary as bad for the country? DOes the simple act of not liking a person make you an 'ist'? Seems that it does here. I do not like Hilary CLinton. I freely admit it. I also have written in female candidates for the general election for president of the United States. So what does that make me? I suppose I am a Hillarist.
I can't see racism inthis either. It does not say that the angry white man is against blacks, muslims, or anyone else. IT simply alludes to a belief in the self.
Not liking the idea of illegal workers taking a job only makes one a 'illegalist' if you derive an ethnic group from that then you have issues.
I am surprised that teh Aspen times had the courage to write such a piece. I am really surprised at the amount of reading between the lines that seems to have occurred on this.
Of all the accusations made no one has taken up the side of the angry white guy as unfairly categorized, portrayed, or stereotyped. Hmmm perhaps there a lot more 'ists' out there than we thought.
vfrjjoeyd said:
"I don't see this as racist or mysogynystic. I think it is a fair assesment of a certain subculture. Saying that women are more emotional than rational is not prejudiced or mysogynistic."
Of course you don't see it as racist or misogynist-----that's because you're racist and misogynist, joeyd.
It makes perfect sense to you.
And I can say this because I work with people who deny that they are racist and misogynist-----but then at some point they realize they are.
The Southern White Male in this country thought nothing of creating separate water fountains, housing, jobs, schools, restaurants, restrooms, stores, etc etc for "coloreds."
Nothing he was doing was racist at all----simply preserving the white culture. Simply doing what came naturally.
The implication that he was racist was foreign to him.
The implication to most guys that they are misogynist in their pejoration of women is foreign to them. Pejoration means putting them down, inferiorizing them.
And if someone tells them they are male prerogative driven, (read: "closet misogynist"), they deny it to the hilt.
As you do.
Because you've never thought about it.
I think Reality Based and Jacqueitch are way out, I don't see this as racist or misogynistic. I think it is a fair assessment of a certain subculture. Saying that women are more emotional than rational is not prejudiced or misogynistic. It does not speak of a need to control or change. And duh women are emotional.
The comment about Hillary is what it is. It is not the underlying seething misogynist coming to light. What if these guys just see Hillary as bad for the country? Does the simple act of not liking a person make you an 'ist'? Seems that it does here. I do not like Hilary Clinton. I freely admit it. I also have written in female candidates for the general election for president of the United States. So what does that make me? I suppose I am a Hillarist.
I can't see racism in this either. It does not say that the angry white man is against blacks, Muslims, or anyone else. IT simply alludes to a belief in the self.
Not liking the idea of illegal workers taking a job only makes one a 'illegalist' if you derive an ethnic group from that then you have issues.
I am surprised that the Aspen times had the courage to write such a piece. I am really surprised at the amount of reading between the lines that seems to have occurred on this.
Of all the accusations made no one has taken up the side of the angry white guy as unfairly categorized, portrayed, or stereotyped. Hmmm perhaps there a lot more 'ists' out there than we thought.
joeyd,
If you keep saying the same thing over and over again, does it eventually make you right?
I suppose it is called 'progress' that racism no longer takes the form of someone saying 'I hate all ____ people'. But that doesn't mean it no longer exists.
@jacqueitch:
wow, you made a distinct and definitive psychiatric evaluation of an individual over the Internet after reading a comment to a blog post. That is some incredible armchair psychiatry. I truly hope that you don’t think everyone who doesn’t vote for Hillary is a misogynist or everyone that doesn’t vote for Barack is a racist, or everyone that doesn’t vote for McCain is an anglicist.
"And I can say this because I work with people who deny that they are racist and misogynist-----but then at some point they realize they are."
No, you can’t. Working with a certain group of individuals gives you the perspective to make snap judgments about everyone on the Internet? There is absolutely no way that after reading exactly one comment on the Internet that you can make those kind of judgments about anyone. While that does seem to be the common belief on the Internet just remember, everyone is unique and different. Not everybody fits into molds (or stereotypes) just because you know other people that are just like them, right?
"Nothing he was doing was racist at all----simply preserving the white culture."
Wow, I am absolutely shocked that people believe things like this. What kind of cognitive dissonance would it take for them to separate people by race (coloreds only) and believe that they were not being racist? Of course they knew they were being racist, that was the entire point. Racism has been a factor in America since Europeans came to America (even before the first African slaves were brought into the colonies). Trying to hide racism inside other rhetoric is a rather recent development. The Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858 (while slightly before the time of renewed southern segregation) hinged almost entirely on slavery and issues of race. For example, “I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment.” That’s Lincoln, defending his opposition of the Dred Scott decision. The prevailing belief at the time was that the African slaves were less intelligent than white people, but at no time was there equivocation over whether or not it was racism. They knew it was racism (both the abolitionists in Lincoln’s time and the Southerners), the only question was whether or not it was right.
Just because someone disagrees with you, or has a differing opinion, doesn’t mean they’re your enemy and you need to hurl insults. Sometimes it’s just a symptom of healthy discourse, which might be seen as the cornerstone of a healthy democracy.
There may be some that may attempt to psychoanalyze and assign labels based on my comment. Although I will share my position, I will not attempt to explain that which some will never understand to those who will never understand it. If after reading my comments you find yourself not understanding, then accept the fact that my comments were not written for your benefit.
In Mr. Hubbell’s article he describes a type of man that he labels the “Angry White Man.” Although many are distracted by the author’s choice of labels, being angry or white is not a requirement. As stated by Mr. Hubbell, the characteristics can be seen throughout the social-economic, political, geographic and racial spectrum.
I realize that some people have contempt for the man described by Garry Hubbell. These people use words like “racist, psychopaths, misogyny, etc” to describe the AWM in an attempt to discredit him because they fear him. These people hope to gather others to support their cause. IMO, the fear of the AWM is justified.
The man who "is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others" and who has no fear of “killing someone who needs killing” isn’t a helpless sheep. He can not be easily controlled by those who wish to destroy him. Attempts to control this type of man’s thoughts, and actions, or to unjustly limiting his freedom could result in someone getting hurt. The AWMs religious and moral authority gives him the justification. His desire for survival, self preservation, and his “latent violent streak” provides him with the strength and courage to protect himself and the innocent against the evils of society. He knows that that the innocent would never fear him, so when evil hates him it is only confirmation of a job well done.
I support, recognize, and salute the “Angry White Man” and all men everywhere who willfully accept criticism in the name of doing the right thing. The job of defending freedom was never easy. It is by your selfless sacrifice that we continue to be a free people. I proudly, willingly, and without reservation accept my position among your ranks.
Post a Comment